Translation of documents when parties use different official languages
[Français]
Bolduc v. Pozzebon
In this case Bolduc v. Pozzebon (June 6, 2005), Toronto 05-CV-289563 PDI, (Ont. S.C.), decision by Wilson J.; Pozzebon v. Bolduc (September 21, 2005), Toronto (Ont. Div. Ct.), decision by Carnwath J., the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered the issue of the translation of documents and pleadings when civil parties use different official languages.
The plaintiff, a Francophone, initiated legal proceedings in the Ontario Superior Court in Toronto seeking recognition of an ownership right. She filed her pleadings in French. The defendants and their counsel did not speak French. They asked the Court to order the plaintiff to translate all the documents and pleadings that she had filed in the case.
Wilson J. dismissed the defendants’ application. She indicated that the Ontario Courts of Justice Act (CJA) R.S.O. 1990, ch. C.43, does not require documents filed in French to be translated into English. Rather, section 125 of the CJA provides that English and French are the official languages of the Ontario courts. Section 126 provides inter alia that a party to a case may file pleadings and other documents drafted in French when the hearing is held in any area named in Schedule II of the Act (the City of Toronto is one such area).
The defendants filed a motion for leave to appeal this judgment in the Divisional Court. They maintained that Wilson J. had erred in her interpretation of sections 125 and 126 of the CJA. They further alleged that sections 125 and 126 of the CJA are unconstitutional, in that they contravene sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Charter.
Carnwath J. of the Divisional Court dismissed the defendants’ motion. To begin, he indicated that sections 125 and 126 of the CJA do not require either the Court or the plaintiff to provide an English translation of documents and pleadings filed in French. He also stated that section 14 of the Charter, which guarantees the right to the assistance of an interpreter for parties or witnesses who cannot follow the proceedings, did not impose in this case an obligation to provide the translation requested by the defendants. As for section 15 of the Charter, which grants equality rights, the judge relied on the judgment by the Ontario Divisional Court in Montfort (Lalonde v. Ontario (Health Services Restructuring Commission) (1999), 48 O.R. (3d) 50, which stated that “s. 15 of the Charter may not be used as a back door to enhance language rights beyond what is specifically provided for elsewhere in the Charter” (cited with approval by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Lalonde v. Ontario (Commission de restructuration des services de santé)(2001), 56 O.R. (3d) 577 [Lalonde] at para. 96. Finally, the judge dismissed the defendants’ argument that sections 125 and 126 of the CJA were contrary to section 16 of the Charter. In so doing, he denied the defendants leave to appeal Wilson J.’s decision.
Categories : Justice
Last Update : 2007-09-27
